Saturday, August 30, 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Monday, August 25, 2014
Thought For The Day: "Nutritional Terrorism": the scientific paranoia that harms you
Everybody who has been trying to decide what to eat on meals almost always faces huge challenges and the fear of eating certain foods, especially because the nutritional composition (fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etc.) could affect our body weight and our health in general. And a myriad of scientific studies, one after another, bring some real tough issues ashore, such as the effect of certain substances in our organism. At most times, those studies turn some foods as some kind of villain to us, saying they are not good, they make you sick, this and that. Some time later, another study comes up saying the same kind of food can be actually good for you. Something really contradictory and misleading, since we don't really know what to believe when getting our bodies fed.
The problem with these studies is that most of them are taken by specialists as unquestionable truths, just like religious scriptures that most of us read and follow. Not to mention, the fact that the way these studies are interpreted and put in practice resemble the Holy Inquisition, the Catholic church court that persecuted and burned every opponent of its faith during the Medieval Ages. As an example, if you eat things from a certain food group, such as carbohydrates, you can be seen as a "heretic," and some people will criticize you or even avoid simply because you've been consuming food that is demonized in our time. For that particular conduct, the most appropriated name is "nutritional terrorism."
There is one researcher, at least, that condemns the excesses of diets and the paranoid behavior of behalf of healthcare professionals and the media. French endocrinologist Sophie Deram has been fighting nutritional terrorism for more than a decade, and advocates that excessive dieting and extremisms when choosing what to eat do not work out well in our bodies on a long term perspective. According to Deram's research, "our brain perceives diets as a huge danger and it will develop some adapting mechanisms. It will increase your appetite, reduce your metabolism, and it will also make you more obsessed for food." Also, the risk of developing eating disorders dramatically increases. "The diet will work on a short term basis. However, your brain will activate mechanisms for adapting, and will also 'turn on' both appetite and fat storage genes." In addition to these mechanisms, Deram also told that "the risk of developing addiction for food gets increased in 18 times after you go on a restrictive diet, as well as you develop eating disorders."
She also criticizes nutritional terrorism, by saying that "we see food nowadays in a very simplified way, when foods are either good or bad," and that "when you only focus on calories and on foods themselves, you forget to listen to your body."
And that is how our world is heading to: a society where half a dozen of privileged "scientists" will dictate your choices and eliminate one of your most basic rights, the freedom to choose what is really better for you, the right to decide for yourself, without any interference. Basically, the right to make decisions with no mandates from individuals, organizations or governments that are only trying to make our society smaller and weaker, in the name of a "greater good" that, in reality, will never really exist. This simplistic, but radical, approach is leading to lower self esteem, disorders, and even deaths. Simply because humans are prone to follow the simplest direction, which is not always the best.
The problem with these studies is that most of them are taken by specialists as unquestionable truths, just like religious scriptures that most of us read and follow. Not to mention, the fact that the way these studies are interpreted and put in practice resemble the Holy Inquisition, the Catholic church court that persecuted and burned every opponent of its faith during the Medieval Ages. As an example, if you eat things from a certain food group, such as carbohydrates, you can be seen as a "heretic," and some people will criticize you or even avoid simply because you've been consuming food that is demonized in our time. For that particular conduct, the most appropriated name is "nutritional terrorism."
There is one researcher, at least, that condemns the excesses of diets and the paranoid behavior of behalf of healthcare professionals and the media. French endocrinologist Sophie Deram has been fighting nutritional terrorism for more than a decade, and advocates that excessive dieting and extremisms when choosing what to eat do not work out well in our bodies on a long term perspective. According to Deram's research, "our brain perceives diets as a huge danger and it will develop some adapting mechanisms. It will increase your appetite, reduce your metabolism, and it will also make you more obsessed for food." Also, the risk of developing eating disorders dramatically increases. "The diet will work on a short term basis. However, your brain will activate mechanisms for adapting, and will also 'turn on' both appetite and fat storage genes." In addition to these mechanisms, Deram also told that "the risk of developing addiction for food gets increased in 18 times after you go on a restrictive diet, as well as you develop eating disorders."
She also criticizes nutritional terrorism, by saying that "we see food nowadays in a very simplified way, when foods are either good or bad," and that "when you only focus on calories and on foods themselves, you forget to listen to your body."
And that is how our world is heading to: a society where half a dozen of privileged "scientists" will dictate your choices and eliminate one of your most basic rights, the freedom to choose what is really better for you, the right to decide for yourself, without any interference. Basically, the right to make decisions with no mandates from individuals, organizations or governments that are only trying to make our society smaller and weaker, in the name of a "greater good" that, in reality, will never really exist. This simplistic, but radical, approach is leading to lower self esteem, disorders, and even deaths. Simply because humans are prone to follow the simplest direction, which is not always the best.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Thought For The Day: Gun control, why it doesn't really work
Over the past 3 years, we have seen some people that, for a myriad of reasons that most of us could never explain, have decided to take other people's lives with no apparent motivation. That's what happened on May 24, 2014, in Isla Vista, Calif., a town neighbor to Santa Barbara and that is home for hundreds of students that attend University of California Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger, 22, who was attending UCSB, was pretty much dissatisfied with the life he was taking and with the fact that he was also having some bad luck in finding women. Frustrated, Rodgers decided to write a 141-page-long letter that turned out to be a manifesto about his troubled life and that a "killing spree" would be happening.
And the spree really happened: at the apartment complex that Rodgers was living at, 3 people have been stabbed (I repeat: stabbed) and killed. After those 3 casualties, Rodgers decided to go for a ride with assault weapons, and killed 3 more people, until he was killed by police officers. One of the victims, Christopher Michaels-Martinez, Richard, blamed the National Rifle Association, and the politicians for the death of his son. And that fueled the debate about gun control, especially when it comes to people with mental illnesses.
When it comes to gun control, and all the claims that it reduces violence, all I can do is disagree with those claims. Every time people compare the U.S. murder rates with the ones of countries like Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, which have much lower rates, they don't realize the fact that these countries have a much smaller population compared to America. In fact, if you combine the population of these 3 countries, you only get 90 million people, which counts for only 28.5% of America's population! Let's compare with a country similar in size: Brazil. The second largest country in the Americas, has about 202 million people, and adopted a strict gun control in 2003. According to the latest Global Homicide Survey, published by the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. had, in 2012, about 14,827 murders, with a ratio of 4.7 violent deaths per each 100,000 people. On the other hand, Brazil had whopping 50,108 murders, with a staggering ratio of 25.7 violent deaths per each 100,000 people. These numbers are comparable to a civil war, and the amount of dead humans is greater than all deaths reported in the war in Iraq, that went from 2003 to 2011. Needless to say that gun controls will not stop the increase of armed militia organizations, as well as it will dramatically increase the smuggling of guns, especially from countries like Mexico and China, which feed the black market of weapons on Earth.
This is what will happen in America if gun control was ever to happen. For a country of its size, and for the political regime it currently adopts, the number of murders in the U.S. is relatively low and below the world average of 6 per every 100,000. The same gun control advocates would certainly get weapons to defend their families and properties, as well as getting armed security officers to defend their lives! The alleged statements defended by anti-gun individuals are simply hypocrisy, since they would buy guns to exercise their defense, instead of turning their guns in. These arguments are pointless and very unreasonable, with no credible evidence that reducing guns would save lives. We need to save our right to bear arms and the right of defending our loved ones and our properties now. Otherwise, we would go back to the stone ages.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
And the spree really happened: at the apartment complex that Rodgers was living at, 3 people have been stabbed (I repeat: stabbed) and killed. After those 3 casualties, Rodgers decided to go for a ride with assault weapons, and killed 3 more people, until he was killed by police officers. One of the victims, Christopher Michaels-Martinez, Richard, blamed the National Rifle Association, and the politicians for the death of his son. And that fueled the debate about gun control, especially when it comes to people with mental illnesses.
When it comes to gun control, and all the claims that it reduces violence, all I can do is disagree with those claims. Every time people compare the U.S. murder rates with the ones of countries like Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, which have much lower rates, they don't realize the fact that these countries have a much smaller population compared to America. In fact, if you combine the population of these 3 countries, you only get 90 million people, which counts for only 28.5% of America's population! Let's compare with a country similar in size: Brazil. The second largest country in the Americas, has about 202 million people, and adopted a strict gun control in 2003. According to the latest Global Homicide Survey, published by the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime (UNODC), the U.S. had, in 2012, about 14,827 murders, with a ratio of 4.7 violent deaths per each 100,000 people. On the other hand, Brazil had whopping 50,108 murders, with a staggering ratio of 25.7 violent deaths per each 100,000 people. These numbers are comparable to a civil war, and the amount of dead humans is greater than all deaths reported in the war in Iraq, that went from 2003 to 2011. Needless to say that gun controls will not stop the increase of armed militia organizations, as well as it will dramatically increase the smuggling of guns, especially from countries like Mexico and China, which feed the black market of weapons on Earth.
This is what will happen in America if gun control was ever to happen. For a country of its size, and for the political regime it currently adopts, the number of murders in the U.S. is relatively low and below the world average of 6 per every 100,000. The same gun control advocates would certainly get weapons to defend their families and properties, as well as getting armed security officers to defend their lives! The alleged statements defended by anti-gun individuals are simply hypocrisy, since they would buy guns to exercise their defense, instead of turning their guns in. These arguments are pointless and very unreasonable, with no credible evidence that reducing guns would save lives. We need to save our right to bear arms and the right of defending our loved ones and our properties now. Otherwise, we would go back to the stone ages.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Thought for the day: "Creative Idleness": does that work?
Human beings were designed to transform the things they find in nature in order to survive and to make their lives better, given our unique characteristics, such as speech, highly developed brain and reason, and the fact that we do not produce our own food, which makes us depend on other living things and on industry to make us fed.
As a result of humans' highly developed brain, something unique comes up of the most evolved specimen of all animals: creativity. This is something that only humans could really develop and perform on a regular basis. It's the act of developing tricks and solution in order for people to solve the most different kinds of problem that may come across in our daily life, whether they are simple (like opening a can) or complex (as performing complex medical diagnosis). In every single trial we have in life, we can notice clear signs of creativity in everything that we see, consume, and do. And we can do all these things when we are busy with activities that could stimulate our minds and ideas. This is the thought that most people on this planet adopt in terms on how to stimulate and to foster creativity in our lives. Well, there is one challenging individual that defies this conception.
Italian sociologist and professor Domenico De Masi, in his book "The Creative Idleness" (free translation, since there is no version of this book published in English), claims that thinking is more important than working, and that everything that didn't involve any kind of human thought would be performed by machines. In a recent interview to the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, De Masi criticizes the American creativity model, called "productivism." This model is based on the value of hard work and productivity in order to improve lives and to bring solutions to challenges. In the interview, De Masi said that
De Masi also praises Native Brazilian heritage, in which Brazilian indians did not have to make any efforts to obtain what they needed, since everything was within people's reach due to the country's abundance of natural resources, especially before the Portuguese arrived to the nation, in 1500. Another aspect quoted was the tolerance the country has with sexuality.
This theory simply does not find any credible evidence that it works in real life. None of the great inventions that make our daily processes easier to perform were not invented while their inventors were idle. And I repeat: none of them! Which means, the claims Domenico De Masi shows that humans are meant to foster and to develop creativity through being lazy are completely unrealistic and rare to see. We only can incentivize creativity by being active in many ways, so our brains can be nourished and ready to imagine, create, and put in practice. Even when we take a walk, to exercise our bodies! In a Stanford University study that was released early May said that a brief stroll could significantly increase creativity. And I can add: when you walk, you see things happening, you experience everyday life situations that could foster and increase your creative skills in order for you to strive and help on our lives.
There is no such thing as a "creative idleness." When you are lazy, you simply don't do anything for yourself and for others. Your lack of action will not lead to any plausible solution to any problem. Or, this same lack of action could turn to a problem itself! Countries like America were only built with creativity driven by hard work and solid ethics, that lead to solid growth and development for our society. This offensive theory is only good for the limousine liberals that I mentioned on a previous post, whereas they worship this idea enjoy the fanciest products that only hard-working capitalism can provide. Idleness doesn't work, only for the bums and the insignificant people that use left-wing theories to highlight their marginal purposes of life. Hard work led creativity is the one that will always matter the most.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
As a result of humans' highly developed brain, something unique comes up of the most evolved specimen of all animals: creativity. This is something that only humans could really develop and perform on a regular basis. It's the act of developing tricks and solution in order for people to solve the most different kinds of problem that may come across in our daily life, whether they are simple (like opening a can) or complex (as performing complex medical diagnosis). In every single trial we have in life, we can notice clear signs of creativity in everything that we see, consume, and do. And we can do all these things when we are busy with activities that could stimulate our minds and ideas. This is the thought that most people on this planet adopt in terms on how to stimulate and to foster creativity in our lives. Well, there is one challenging individual that defies this conception.
Italian sociologist and professor Domenico De Masi, in his book "The Creative Idleness" (free translation, since there is no version of this book published in English), claims that thinking is more important than working, and that everything that didn't involve any kind of human thought would be performed by machines. In a recent interview to the Brazilian newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, De Masi criticizes the American creativity model, called "productivism." This model is based on the value of hard work and productivity in order to improve lives and to bring solutions to challenges. In the interview, De Masi said that
"Americans spread to the world the 'manager' culture. Italy, for example, has really become Americanized. Even in its culture. In there, there are only American movies and rock n'roll nowadays. Brazil has Bossa Nova and the Soap Operas."
De Masi also praises Native Brazilian heritage, in which Brazilian indians did not have to make any efforts to obtain what they needed, since everything was within people's reach due to the country's abundance of natural resources, especially before the Portuguese arrived to the nation, in 1500. Another aspect quoted was the tolerance the country has with sexuality.
This theory simply does not find any credible evidence that it works in real life. None of the great inventions that make our daily processes easier to perform were not invented while their inventors were idle. And I repeat: none of them! Which means, the claims Domenico De Masi shows that humans are meant to foster and to develop creativity through being lazy are completely unrealistic and rare to see. We only can incentivize creativity by being active in many ways, so our brains can be nourished and ready to imagine, create, and put in practice. Even when we take a walk, to exercise our bodies! In a Stanford University study that was released early May said that a brief stroll could significantly increase creativity. And I can add: when you walk, you see things happening, you experience everyday life situations that could foster and increase your creative skills in order for you to strive and help on our lives.
There is no such thing as a "creative idleness." When you are lazy, you simply don't do anything for yourself and for others. Your lack of action will not lead to any plausible solution to any problem. Or, this same lack of action could turn to a problem itself! Countries like America were only built with creativity driven by hard work and solid ethics, that lead to solid growth and development for our society. This offensive theory is only good for the limousine liberals that I mentioned on a previous post, whereas they worship this idea enjoy the fanciest products that only hard-working capitalism can provide. Idleness doesn't work, only for the bums and the insignificant people that use left-wing theories to highlight their marginal purposes of life. Hard work led creativity is the one that will always matter the most.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
Monday, May 19, 2014
Thought for the day: What on Earth is Caviar Left?
For all those of you who wonder where those people that are on the spotlight go in terms of political ideology, I can tell you by introducing you to a new expression: Caviar Left. The words may seem contradictory, since they represent different figures and action. Caviar, the eggs that come from the Sturgeon, a rare type of fish that can only be found in the Caspian Sea, and which is a symbol of wealth and luxury worldwide.
Left, in Political Science, is the term that defines all those who usually sympathize with social ideas, generally associated with Communism and/or Socialism, that usually only care about the poor and oppressed peoples across the Earth. The supporters of the Left usually condemn wealth and profits and that, basically, "worship" the big government, considering this entity as a "Messiah" or the "laical God." But, in reality, what caviar leftists really do is something diametrically opposite to what they say in regards to their political views. This issue, however, I will explained later on this post.
Before I say what are the real actions for caviar leftists, I will explain the origin of the term caviar left, not very popular in the U. S. but quite popular abroad. The expression "caviar left" was first seen in France, in the late 1960s. After the famous student demonstrations of 1968, in which they defended socialist causes and the youth as the only phase of life that you can really do something for a change ("Don't trust anyone older than 30," they said at the time), but these "petit-bourgeois" (according to the French) kept on having every kind of pleasure that any classic socialist would severely condemn. That was why the French press and thinkers gave this trend the name gauche caviar (the French for caviar left), simply because of the contradiction found between speech and practice. It can be seen as a synonym for the expression limousine liberal, which basically mean the same kind of thought.
Back to the "actions" of the caviar left, there are a few examples of how we can explain the dynamics of the liberal thought. First, imagine yourself defending that regimes like those seen in Cuba and Venezuela are more equal for the majority of the population and that brought hope for the less afortunate in terms of income. But, instead of living like real socialist thinkers do, you simply enjoy the best of everything that only capitalism can provide! You defend simplicity but you'll never give up on the Malibu mansion or the Manhattan penthouse!
The second example is of the environmentalist who defends the use of bicycles and/or public transportation to get around the cities, or a hybrid or electric car in the worse case scenario. However, the reality is clearly different: this same ecology militant gets around on very expensive (and gas thirsty) cars, and they only fly in private jets, too! Which shows a gigantic contradiction between what they say and what they do. And this result has a powerful name: hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy because actions do not match the words of the people that abide by this ideology. And, unfortunately, this has become the ideological standard of Hollywood, in which you either keep your mouth shut or support the caviar left corolarium, because you will not get any job in that industry.
The latest example comes from the actor and comedian Rob Schneider, who switched from the Democratic to the Republican party simply because he was severely disappointed in the fact that caviar left has become the standard in Hollywood. He said that
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
To be continued
Left, in Political Science, is the term that defines all those who usually sympathize with social ideas, generally associated with Communism and/or Socialism, that usually only care about the poor and oppressed peoples across the Earth. The supporters of the Left usually condemn wealth and profits and that, basically, "worship" the big government, considering this entity as a "Messiah" or the "laical God." But, in reality, what caviar leftists really do is something diametrically opposite to what they say in regards to their political views. This issue, however, I will explained later on this post.
Before I say what are the real actions for caviar leftists, I will explain the origin of the term caviar left, not very popular in the U. S. but quite popular abroad. The expression "caviar left" was first seen in France, in the late 1960s. After the famous student demonstrations of 1968, in which they defended socialist causes and the youth as the only phase of life that you can really do something for a change ("Don't trust anyone older than 30," they said at the time), but these "petit-bourgeois" (according to the French) kept on having every kind of pleasure that any classic socialist would severely condemn. That was why the French press and thinkers gave this trend the name gauche caviar (the French for caviar left), simply because of the contradiction found between speech and practice. It can be seen as a synonym for the expression limousine liberal, which basically mean the same kind of thought.
Back to the "actions" of the caviar left, there are a few examples of how we can explain the dynamics of the liberal thought. First, imagine yourself defending that regimes like those seen in Cuba and Venezuela are more equal for the majority of the population and that brought hope for the less afortunate in terms of income. But, instead of living like real socialist thinkers do, you simply enjoy the best of everything that only capitalism can provide! You defend simplicity but you'll never give up on the Malibu mansion or the Manhattan penthouse!
The second example is of the environmentalist who defends the use of bicycles and/or public transportation to get around the cities, or a hybrid or electric car in the worse case scenario. However, the reality is clearly different: this same ecology militant gets around on very expensive (and gas thirsty) cars, and they only fly in private jets, too! Which shows a gigantic contradiction between what they say and what they do. And this result has a powerful name: hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy because actions do not match the words of the people that abide by this ideology. And, unfortunately, this has become the ideological standard of Hollywood, in which you either keep your mouth shut or support the caviar left corolarium, because you will not get any job in that industry.
The latest example comes from the actor and comedian Rob Schneider, who switched from the Democratic to the Republican party simply because he was severely disappointed in the fact that caviar left has become the standard in Hollywood. He said that
"There’s a polarization that’s happening…I do think you look can look at government and go, “Wow, it is out of control now,” and if you do criticize or tend to be not directly along a liberal stand, you can get murdered."Unfortunately, this is a dangerous trend that has to end. Our society has to hold this kind of liberal activists accountable for their thoughts and actions and to demand that they either act according to their ideology or to assume their lavish lifestyle. At least this way, actions and thoughts could become more coherent and more dignified.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
To be continued
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Thinking Out Loud: first thought and blog mission
Thinking out loud. For many people, this is something that happens naturally when it comes to express feelings and ideas about life and what goes around it. For some others, this is something that may be a little hard to do in an everyday basis, given the facts either these people are shy or are restrained by social conventions.
The act of thinking out loud should not be seen as something that we should avoid at all times. It is, indeed, the opposite: it's the only mechanism we have to express all of our opinions and concerns about a variety of topics that affect our individual lives, our community, our country. We can see every single day the numerous attacks our beliefs and freedom suffer from all kinds of enemies: oppressors, political groups, misanthropists, countless humans who desire the disgrace and the misery of other people only for the sole purpose of a "unanimous" world, where only their own opinions are right and all others are not only wrong, but become "enemies."
People who defend solid values and causes should be the most active out-loud thinkers. They have no fear of defending their ideas among others, in a world where hostility and artificial conflicts arise overnight, without a logical explanation. They are the modern-day version of the old Roman gladiators, when lions were thrown at the fighters and those had the task of slaughtering the wild beasts.
This is the mission of my blog: to slaughter the modern-day lions (people with opinions that don't like a healthy debate) with a concise counter opinion, without losing the level and, most of all, defending the values that matter most to our humble society. Family, freedom, free economy, and our right to happiness will be our banners of fight and our driving force on a misguided world in desperate need of good examples and ideas.
Starting now, the debate is open. Open for ideas, thoughts and actions. Open for a civilized discussion, with no fear of polemicizing at times. Open for contribution and for serving the community. Open for you.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
The act of thinking out loud should not be seen as something that we should avoid at all times. It is, indeed, the opposite: it's the only mechanism we have to express all of our opinions and concerns about a variety of topics that affect our individual lives, our community, our country. We can see every single day the numerous attacks our beliefs and freedom suffer from all kinds of enemies: oppressors, political groups, misanthropists, countless humans who desire the disgrace and the misery of other people only for the sole purpose of a "unanimous" world, where only their own opinions are right and all others are not only wrong, but become "enemies."
People who defend solid values and causes should be the most active out-loud thinkers. They have no fear of defending their ideas among others, in a world where hostility and artificial conflicts arise overnight, without a logical explanation. They are the modern-day version of the old Roman gladiators, when lions were thrown at the fighters and those had the task of slaughtering the wild beasts.
This is the mission of my blog: to slaughter the modern-day lions (people with opinions that don't like a healthy debate) with a concise counter opinion, without losing the level and, most of all, defending the values that matter most to our humble society. Family, freedom, free economy, and our right to happiness will be our banners of fight and our driving force on a misguided world in desperate need of good examples and ideas.
Starting now, the debate is open. Open for ideas, thoughts and actions. Open for a civilized discussion, with no fear of polemicizing at times. Open for contribution and for serving the community. Open for you.
This is my thought for the day, for all those like me, who are here thinking out loud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)